Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/thedemonhog 2


 * The following discussion is preserved as an archive of a successful request for adminship. Please do not modify it .

thedemonhog
Final (100/1/1); Closed as successful by WjBscribe at 00:05, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

- My fellow Wikipedians, I wish to offer you thedemonhog as my fifteenth candidate for adminship.

Thedemonhog joined the Wikipedia community in March of 2006. In her time here, she has amassed some 9,000 edits, with over 4600 being to articles, almost 2,000 to talk pages, 1400+ being to the project-space, and some 500 to the templates and images. Not wanting to just count her edits, however, Thedemonhog is an impressive article-writer: she has brought over ten articles up to both good and featured status, and also done a lot of work to non-GA/FA articles as well. With vandalism, even though she is not a heavy vandal-fighter, Thedemonhog is an effective one, and was granted rollback rights by WJBscribe, which she has not abused.

This is not Thedemonhog's first RfA: she was nominated by Epbr123 in November of last year, which closed at a tally of 31/14/12. Most of the concerns raised there were that the Thedemonhog didn’t participate in the Wikipedia-space enough, and that she may have certain policy knowledge gaps. I supported that RfA, as I thought that she was ready, but in the time since then, I believe that she has addressed those concerns. Even better, there has been more than half-a-year's gap between that nomination and this one, meaning that Thedemonhog has not been in a rush to become an administrator.

In addition, Thedemonhog is a civil user: in my observations of her, I have never once seen her be rude or disruptive, and whenever I have seen her interact with others, she has always been helpful and honest, important traits for admins. As I mentioned above, she had a past RfA, and her behavior there was good.

Overall, I think that Thedemonhog is an excellent and experienced user. I have only seen good things from her, and when she is granted sysop status, I can only expect a continuation of her great work. Acalamari 21:40, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Co nomination by Malinaccier: I first offered to nominate thedemonhog about three months ago, but she politely declined because she didn't feel that she was ready. Now that she is, I am proud to be adding a co-nomination for this amazing editor.

One great thing about thedemonhog is that she is swimming in Featured and Good content. She's written (or helped improve) six articles, three lists, and a topic to featured status. Six good articles also have her name on them. Thedemonhog is not simply a content contributor, however. In her last 500 or so edits, there are over thirty edits to deletion debates along with evidence of vandal-fighting and Help Desk volunteering. All in all, she's a well balanced editor who isn't afraid of getting her feet wet.

In her last RFA, the main concern (and one I held myself in the "Oppose" section) was that thedemonhog didn't have enough experience in the Projectspace. Now, this "weakness" is totally cured. She has racked up 1,400+ projectspace edits and ample experience in that area.

In my "observations" of her editing prior to my last nomination offer and this one, I've noticed thedemonhog to be extremely civil, polite, and helpful--which are much overlooked qualities an administrator needs to be successful. The addition of the sysop buttons to her range of tools would most definitely help to continue and expand upon the great work she has done without them. Thank you, Malinaccier (talk) 20:45, 24 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here:

Okay. Thank you, I accept. – thedemonhog   talk •  edits  00:02, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Questions for the candidate
Dear candidate, thank you for offering to serve Wikipedia as an administrator. It is recommended that you answer these optional questions to provide guidance for participants:
 * 1. What admin work do you intend to take part in?
 * A: Before I begin using the tools, I will attend New Admin School. After that, I will close some articles for deletion.  In theory, the old discussions should be nominations in which consensus has not been reached; in practice, some old discussions have had consensus established for some time and I will help with this backlog.  I will also ease my way into administrator intervention against vandalism, requests for rollback.  Eventually, I would also like to help out with requested moves, starting with the uncontroversial proposals.


 * 2. What are your best contributions to Wikipedia, and why?
 * A: Most of the featured and good articles that I have written (e.g. this FAC and this GA) are within the scope of the Lost WikiProject. This television season, another editor and I were almost successful in making every episode article of the season a good or featured article.  In the project space, I have become the most frequent commenter at the today's featured article requests page.  I also respond to queries at the help desk and comment at AfDs and RfAs.


 * 3. Have you been in any conflicts over editing in the past or have other users caused you stress? How have you dealt with it and how will you deal with it in the future?
 * A: I took a virtual beating when an article that I wrote, Through the Looking Glass (Lost) appeared as today's featured article. Readers accused the article of being a commercial.  Despite this, I remained civil.  In the future, I will know what I am up against; thus, I will be more prepared to react to criticism and nonsense.


 * Optional question from Icewedge:
 * 4. Do you feel that you are really able to get a good idea of the notability on AFD articles when you go through 3 of them in 4 minutes ?
 * A. In those cases, yes. First of all, the four minutes counted above do not include the time that was taken to research the first AfD.  The comment that I left at it was "Merge into Real World/Road Rules Challenge per lack of secondary sources."  I stand by this, as I believed that there simply was not enough information out there to warrant its own article, but thought that it did deserve a mention so I suggested a merge into a longer and related article.  The second and third AfDs that you mentioned were more clear cut for me.  At the time, I was looking at what was transcluded in WikiProject Deletion sorting/Television.  For #2, I added "Delete: If a television episode does not establish notability, it should be merged into a list of episodes.  The main article for the series will also suffice."  Although I did not link it, I was referencing Television episodes, which states that "It is important to bear this in mind when creating articles, and it is likely that each individual episode of a television series will not be notable on its own, simply because there are not enough secondary sources available. … While each episode on its own may not qualify for an article, it is quite likely that sources can be found to support a series or season page, where all the episodes in one season (or series) are presented on one page."  The third AfD mentioned was on an article about a set of DVD releases.  Unless there is something special about them, as in this case, I do not believe that articles about DVD releases have a place on Wikipedia so I commented "Delete per sufficient coverage at Miami Vice."  Another editor offered a "per thedemonhog" vote—oh, excuse me—!vote and the closing admin wrote that "The result was Delete and redirect to Miami Vice."  I could have taken more time on those, but the outcomes of my opinions and the debates would not have changed.


 * Question from User:Stifle:
 * 5. Under what circumstances may a non-free image of a living person be used on Wikipedia?
 * A. A low resolution non-free image of a living person may be used for "critical commentary" as part of a cover, promotional poster or screenshot that could not be recreated or modelled after without being a copyright violation. The image description page must have an appopriate use rationale license; the image must be used in the main namespace (sparingly) and meet the criteria for inclusion.  A non-free image of a living person should not be used solely to identify a living person or make a page more aesthetically pleasing (especially when a free equivalent could reasonably be obtained).


 * Not a trick question from Kmweber
 * 6. When should cool-down blocks be used?
 * A. All the time!  For more information, see Blocking policy.  ;)
 * Wikipedia talk:Blocking policy is an active discussion of this issue. — Athaenara  ✉  08:53, 5 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Follow-up from lifebaka
 * 6.1. As a follow up, why do you believe that the policy states that cool-down blocks should not be used?
 * A. The policy states this because, while cool-down blocks have good intentions, they actually make situations worse, as it is likely that the blocked user will become (even more) riled up.


 * Optional questions from User:Filll
 * 7. What should be done to encourage calmer environments around RfAs and similar polls? For example, would you support the Peaceful Polling Pledge?
 * A. I support some of the pledge. I disagree with blocking to make a point, but I like the reasons not to explain one's vote and the statement that voters are unlikely to switch sides if they are harrassed.  Too many voters are being confronted and criticized.  This is a problem similar to the cool-down block.  People questioning opposes think that they are helping, but they are often solidifying the opposes.  Perhaps no vote should be directly responded to with a new line and an indent; maybe this sort of discussion should only take place in the "discussion" section without the obvious attacks directed at specific comments.  The RfA review looks like it will be able to solve or at least, address, the issue.


 * 8. Answer two of the exercises at the AGF Challenge 2 and post the answers here or a link to your answers.
 * A. Heh heh, I like #7 because it sounds like a soap opera.: AppleButtEr brings in others to help him, but RunOff reveals that he is an admin and makes it clear that anyone disagreeing with his position will be blocked. First, I will respond to "How long is yours?".  Wikipedia should list the DVD as seventy-five minutes in length, as this can be verified through reliable sources, unlike the fifty-one-minute claim.  While it may seem unfair at times, editors need to remember that a claim without a citation to a reliable source is original research and could cause Wikipedia to be viewed as unreliable and a possible publisher of false information, which is why policy calls for removal of unsourced information.  While it would be nice for this issue to be resolved quickly, it is more important that it is resolved so the answer is as long as it takes.  Pleasing the Wikipedia Review (or rather, not pleasing them) should never be a priority here.  "Ignore all rules" does not apply here and a violation of the sentence-long policy is a strange concept.  Next, I will answer "No original research!"  This is not original research.  Once again, there is no time limit for solving the problem.  It is a bit odd that a table is being made to document conflicting reports.  Because the range is so big, it might be best not to mention the percentages or to simply state that there is a range in findings between the smallest and largest numbers.  If everyone brought in by AppleButtEr gave up, a request for comment should be filed for the abusive administrator RunOff.

Still on neutral so 5 questions for you to answer. This vague incomplete thing might give some insight on how I look through it and decide. Ncmvocalist (talk) 16:51, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Questions from User:Ncmvocalist
 * 9. What is your opinion regarding a policy requiring all edits by banned users to be reverted?
 * A. I am weakly opposed to this. Edits by banned users should generally be reverted, as this is part of a ban's definition, but I support keeping edits that do no harm.  It is a waste of time to revert a helpful edit and then double-revert so that the improvement is kept (and the reverting user could be accused of proxying).


 * 10. If you were asked to review a block (according to the log, blocked for "personal attacks"), but in the editor's limited number of contributions, there are no personal attacks, but a large amount of edit-warring, how would you respond? What actions (if any) would you take? Assume the blocking admin is away on holiday.
 * A. If the edit warring was enough to warrant a block, I would not unblock the the editor and explain my reason(s) to him or her. Additionally, I would state that the blocking administrator probably mislabelled the block.


 * 11. Given that blocks can be (and often are) undone, would you say that it doesn't matter too much if a mistake is made (in making a block)? Discuss.
 * A. We try to avoid them, but we all make mistakes, so it does not matter too much if one is made with a block. Simply unblock the user, apologize to him or her for the inconenience and leave a note for the blocking administrator explaining the change.


 * 12. If you were engaged in a long content dispute with another editor, and they started cursing suddenly, what would you do?
 * A. I would probably continue with the discussion as if the editor had not started cursing suddenly. Chances are that another user would see this and remind the cursing editor to remain civil.  This other user's comment would be much more effective than one from myself, as it is more likely to be received as helpful advice.  If the cursing editor continued to curse, a warning might have to be issued.


 * 13. What effect does incivility among contributors have on Wikipedia achieving its purpose (and what is that purpose)? Is incivility treated more seriously than other policy violations? Why do you think so?
 * A. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and the primary purpose of Wikipedians is to write it. Incivil contributors might hurt the feelings of or drive away good contributors from Wikipedia.  If a contributor left, the area(s) that he or she edits might suffer through lack of updates and/or maintenance.  Based on the third sentence of your question, incivility is treated more seriously than other policy violations.  The encyclopedia must be protected and measures have been taken through blocking, protecting and warning.  But the encyclopedia cannot be protected if someone is not there to protect it, which is why incivilty is treated more seriously than other policy violations.

General comments

 * See thedemonhog's edit summary usage with mathbot's tool. For the edit count, see the talk page.


 * Links:
 * See edit summary usage with mathbot's tool. For the edit count, see the talk page.
 * See monthly edits distribution through namespaces with count edits tool 3
 * IP links: talk • contributions • edit count

''Please keep discussion constructive and civil. If you are unfamiliar with the nominee, please thoroughly review Special:Contributions/thedemonhog before commenting.''

Discussion

 * I am not going to be leaving messages on your talk pages, so I would like to thank you here for commenting. And say goodbye to the main page!  – thedemonhog   talk  •  edits  23:43, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Unacceptable, I demand thankspam. – xeno cidic  ( talk ) 23:52, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Okay, fine. But only for you.  – thedemonhog   talk  •  edits  00:10, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Support

 * 1) Support Seeing you around, I was planning on nominating you about a month ago, but was delayed. Has many featured and GA-class articles, and would be very useful to the project. Good luck! -- Mizu onna sango15 / Discuss 00:17, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Not to mention we need more female admins, too. :-) -- Mizu onna sango15 / Discuss 00:20, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
 * 1) Support per noms. No problems. Epbr123 (talk) 00:18, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
 * 2) Support I previously offered to nominate thedemonhog as an admin - which (s)he declined. I'm sure (s)he'll do fine with the tools. «  Milk's Favorite  Cøøkie  00:22, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
 * 3) Strong Support. I supported her at her first RFA and she has only since become an even better candidate. Lots of mainspace work, tons of experience, knows what she's doing. She'll be a great admin. Useight (talk) 00:47, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
 * 4) obviously. Naerii 01:19, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
 * 5) Strong Support Looking forward to seeing you around WP:AFDO! -- jonny - m t  01:26, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
 * 6) Nousernamesleft (talk) 01:37, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
 * 7) Someone who I've noticed is a very helpful and smart editor. --JayHenry (talk) 01:43, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
 * 8) Support the candidate will be an excellent administrator. -IcĕwedgЁ (ťalķ) 01:49, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
 * 9) Support.  bibliomaniac 1  5  01:57, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
 * 10) Support - Excellent editor. Thorough experience and knowledge of policy. Should make a fine administrator.  Wisdom89  ( T |undefined /  C ) 02:06, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
 * 11) Support Making it an even dozen. Next? Ecoleetage (talk) 02:07, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
 * 12) Support Baker's dozen? :D  Maxim (talk)  02:20, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
 * 13) Support By all means. RxS (talk) 02:22, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
 * 14) Strong Support Great person. I trust her with the tools. America69 (talk) 02:39, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
 * 15) --cremepuff222 (talk) 03:01, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
 * 16) Support Good 'pedia builder. can be trusted. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 03:20, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
 * 17) Support Editor has overcame her weakness and has enough patience to wait for more than half a year for a second shot at adminship.-- Lenticel ( talk ) 03:54, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
 * 18) Support - I have seen this editor doing a lot of good work for the encyclopedia.--Danaman5 (talk) 04:58, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
 * 19) Strong Support - Like, why wasn't I informed ealrier? **girly giggle**  Corn.u.co.pia ♥  Disc.us.sion  05:07, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
 * 20) Support. Oran e   (talk)  05:37, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
 * 21) Definitely, a class editor. weburiedoursecretsinthegarden  06:15, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
 * 22) Yup. —Giggy 06:29, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
 * 23) Support Easy decision. – sgeureka t•c 07:33, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
 * 24) Support I've seen this candidate around and have been impressed with their work. Good luck! PeterSymonds (talk)  08:56, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
 * 25) Of course Sceptre (talk) 09:03, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
 * 26) Support. Excellent editor, her work with the Lost wikiproject has been outstanding. I have no reason to believe she would misuse the tools. Rje (talk) 10:56, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
 * 27) Everyme (was Dorftrottel) (talk) 12:20, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
 * 28) Support absolutely. —αἰτίας •'discussion'• 13:04, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
 * 29) Strong Support Everything here is perfect admin material. Shapiros10  contact me My work  13:08, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
 * 30) Support - trustworthy editor. PhilKnight (talk) 13:28, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
 * 31) Support Knows what he's doing.-- Serviam  (talk)  14:17, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
 * 32) Support No problems here. Tan   |   39  14:48, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
 * 33) Support as userpage suggests he spent time working on good and featured articles. Sincerely, --  Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles  Tally-ho! 16:29, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
 * 34) Of course!  Al Tally  talk  16:50, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
 * 35) Support. As co-nominator. Malinaccier (talk) 16:59, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
 * 36) Excellent user who has the experience to make a good admin. No concerns that I can see.  Ry an P os tl et hw ai te  17:13, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
 * 37) Support per answer to Q6. More seriously, I see no trust issues, and anticipate you will be a fine admin.  &hArr; &int;Æ S   dt  @ 18:16, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
 * 38) Support Great editor, I have ran into her edits many times while on Wikipedia. And of course she passes my criteria. -- Chetblong ( talk ) 18:57, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
 * 39) As Thedemonhog's nominator, I strongly support this nomination. :) She's a great editor, and I stand by my statement. Acalamari 19:02, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
 * 40) Support I won't hold the fact you're a Heroes fan against you. RMHED (talk) 19:14, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
 * 41) Support Sensible with clue etc. Has enough experience and everything. Would be good. --Tombomp (talk/contribs) 20:02, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
 * 42) Support - I can find no reason not to do so. Shereth 23:12, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
 * 43) Support I supported last time, and am happy to support again. faithless   (speak)  23:19, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
 * 44) Support all Canadian demons. Hús  ö  nd  00:29, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
 * 45) Support tabor -drop me a line 02:44, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
 * 46) Support per deft handling of Q6. – xeno cidic  ( talk ) 03:20, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
 * 47) Supporting an annoyingly excellent editor.--Yamanbaiia (free hugs!) 09:02, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
 * 48) Support a grand candidate. Stellar article work as well! Well done!  Lra drama 09:49, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
 * 49) Support, in this user's last RfA, I opposed because I felt that the user had not gained experience in a wide enough range of areas and topics. And while I would like to see some more substantial content creation on an article that does not relate to a television programme, the user has been making enough useful contributions to XfD and projectspace that I can justify supporting this nomination.  Also, I find it very unlikely that this user would deliberately misuse the tools.  Lankiveil (speak to me) 11:24, 1 July 2008 (UTC).
 * 50) Support I've seen him her around quite a bit at the LOST areas, and (s)he always advances the articles in a very positive manner, and has productive discussions on the talk pages. Definitely fits the 'why not promote to admin' criteria for me. WikiKingOfMishawaka (talk) 14:30, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
 * 51) Support -- out of retirement (briefly) to add onto the support pile; I've watched this editor grow and flourish to be an excellent Wikipedia contributor, from when I first noticed her contributions in 2006. I've no doubt she would make a fine addition as an admin. -- LeflymanTalk 17:12, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
 * 52) Support Per Mizu  MBisanz  talk 17:14, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
 * 53) Support Well-handed, experienced user who will work great with the admin tools. Schfifty  Three  17:15, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
 * 54) Support. User has outstanding history. First time in a while candidate has come up which I have previously awarded a barnstar to ( here) . Rudget   ( logs ) 17:30, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
 * 55) Support - No problems here.   Asenine   17:57, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
 * 56) Support - Good editor, trustworthy -- Mr.crabby   (Talk)   22:12, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
 * 57) Support. Per the noms, and some great quality contributions to this project. Cirt (talk) 23:25, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
 * 58) Support See no reason not to. Little Mountain 5  23:54, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
 * 59) Certainly. --PeaceNT (talk) 02:54, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
 * 60) Support. See no issues here. Jayjg (talk) 03:45, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
 * 61) Support - no issues at all! Very trustworthy, experienced editor! Good luck! --Cameron* 09:34, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
 * 62) Support - Richard Cavell (talk) 10:18, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
 * 63) Support No reason for concern. SWik78 (talk • contribs) 13:55, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
 * 64) Support .... because ....--Regents Park (sink with the skaters) 16:27, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
 * 65) Support per Question 6, et al, particularly because Sarcasm is really helpful most of the time. UltraExactZZ Claims~ Evidence 17:23, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
 * 66) Support, levelheaded, has clue. An asset to Wikipedia.  Keeper   |   76   |   Disclaimer  18:45, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
 * 67) Support–Candidate has experience as a user in the area they want to admin. Seems to have a good grasp of policy.  I trust her.  Livitup (talk) 19:12, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
 * 68) troppuS I detov rof uoy tsal emit, dna ll'I od ti niaga htiw edirp. flaminglawyerc 21:55, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
 * 69) Support Very nice articlespace work. - Dan Dank55 (talk)(mistakes) 23:45, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
 * 70) Support TomStar81 (Talk) 00:00, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
 * 71) Support per Q6. That made me laugh.-- Koji †  Dude  (C) 01:16, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
 * 72) Support - superb work on articles. I trust this user with the tools. Sephiroth BCR  ( Converse ) 03:50, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
 * 73) Support - have never had a problem with this user; does great work especially on TV-related articles. Daniel Case (talk) 05:07, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
 * 74) Support You have a high edit count and you appear to be contributing nicely to Wikipedia. I trust you with the tools  Yamakiri  TC     [ §]    07-3-2008 • 06:53:46
 * 75) Support WTHN?  Qb  | your 2 cents  11:12, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
 * 76) Support The default answer should be support, unless the candidate has major problems that need fixing. thedemonhog does not. --I'm an Editorofthewiki[citation needed] 15:19, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
 * 77) Support as a fan of Hayao Miyazaki, in case your user name refers to the demon hog in Princess Mononoke, or else because you have lots of good experience. Jehochman Talk 15:48, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
 * No, my username is random. I was creating an e-mail account and had to come up with something original enough to avoid numbers.  – thedemonhog   talk  •  edits  17:34, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Aye.  In that case, I recommend you watch the movie. :-) Jehochman Talk 18:34, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
 * 1) Support Already does great work, tools can only help make the work even better Mastrchf (t/c) 21:59, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
 * 2) Support - User seems to know their way around Wikipedia. --  ThinkBlue  (Hit BLUE) 22:55, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
 * 3) Support. However, I would go so far as to say that non-free images of living people should generally be avoided.  Bwrs (talk) 07:06, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
 * 4) Support - Garion96 (talk) 10:32, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
 * 5) Support, per my previous reasoning (on TomStar's RfA) regarding the fact that getting these extra tools is not that big of a deal, and they should be given to anyone who asks, unless they have clearly demonstrated some deficiency that would make one suspect they would misuse them. S. Dean Jameson 15:26, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
 * 6) Support Despite not viewing the contribs, I have a good feeling that she'll make it. -iaNLOPEZ1115 02:57, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
 * 7) SupportSumoeagle179 (talk) 15:18, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
 * 8) Support, no reason not to. Wizardman  15:33, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
 * 9) Tired cliché Not one already... Knowledge Of Self  &#124;  talk  15:52, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
 * 10) Support will use the tools wisely Dreamspy (talk) 20:25, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
 * --cremepuff222 (talk) 02:40, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
 * You have already voted (#16). Thanks, though.  – thedemonhog   talk  •  edits  02:44, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Lol, this is like the third time I've done this. *blush* --cremepuff222 (talk) 02:48, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
 * 1) Support -- Avi (talk) 03:28, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
 * 2) Support Frank  |  talk  05:03, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
 * 3) Support per overall answers to the questions and points brought out in nominations. Not all questions were answered to my liking but the overall impression I get is that handing this editor adminship responsibilities will improve the project.  davidwr/  (talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail)  13:56, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
 * 4) Support--Jan eissfeldt (talk) 19:13, 6 July 2008 (UTC) he works hard for this section of the project
 * 5) Support after careful consideration. :) Seems cool-headed enough. - Warthog  Demon  20:13, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
 * 6) Support - moved from neutral. Impressed. Best wishes - Ncmvocalist (talk) 20:17, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
 * 7) Support  As per Track and Acarimari.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 21:16, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
 * 8) Support -- A dmrb♉ltz (t • c • [ log]) 22:41, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
 * 9) Support. &mdash; Maggot Syn 22:49, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
 * 10) I agree! I think he should be an Admin! --Raddude50 (talk) 23:18, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
 * 11) Sorry to be late to the party Support.  Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 23:27, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Support—Welcome to the WP:100 club.  Maxim (talk)  23:37, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
 * The above is a duplicate vote. I have indented it. Gary King ( talk ) 00:02, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Argh, didn't notice my baker's dozen joke above... [[Image:Face-sad.svg|20 px]]  Maxim (talk)  00:09, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
 * 1) Support Fantastic editor. --Jackieboy87 (talk) 23:44, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Oppose

 * 1) Oppose &mdash; Per answer to Q6. The conventional wisdom on this issue is, frankly, ludicrous; I see no problem with cool-down blocks whatsoever.  They're perfectly fine.  Kurt Weber ( Go Colts! ) 18:24, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
 * The answer she gave was perfectly in compliance with policy (though a bit sarcastic :)). I really don't see what this has to do with the candidate in question. Malinaccier (talk) 19:15, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Who cares what so-called "policy" says? So-called "policy" should never be interpreted as being imperative or prescriptive, but merely descriptive of what has typically happened in the past (right or wrong).  We're not rule-bound here; if the rules are wrong, then we should ignore them--and I expect a servant to do just that.  A refusal to do that makes one unfit to be a community servant.  Kurt Weber ( Go Colts! ) 20:17, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I've asked a follow-up regarding the question. While you are entitled to your opinion on this matter, I hope that you will reconsider (but not necessarily change your position) after it is answered.  Cheers.  --<i style="color:green;">lifebaka</i> (Talk - Contribs) 21:49, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
 * On Ryan Lupin's most recent RfA, I was accused of giving a ridiculous reason to oppose. Might I just say that, if my reason was ridiculous, then what are we dealing with here? <span style="font-family:Comic Sans MS,sans-serif"> Lra drama 09:43, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
 * There's nothing wrong with the candidate herself. She just gave the answer because if you answer in any other way, it's an automatic failure ticket. Trick questions should not be asked in RFA - we should be encouraging administrators to think, not to be mindless drones. Sceptre (talk) 14:34, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
 * And opposing people who are more concerned with following the so-called "rules" than with actually using their own judgment and doing the right thing is incompatible with that? Kurt Weber ( Go Colts! ) 21:18, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
 * When she answered that question, she was more concerned about failing her RFA than following the rules. As it stands, the question is immensely stupid and opposes based solely on how it is answered should be disregarded. Sceptre (talk) 14:06, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
 * So in other words, she cares about whether or not she becomes a servant? That's yet another problem...Kurt Weber ( Go Colts! ) 14:33, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
 * You misunderstand. I can't speak for her, but I think the reason she answered the question the way she did is because she was expected to, not because she necessarily agrees with the sentiment. For example, loads of people keep a civil tongue on Wikipedia where they'd love to curse as much of a sailor. Sceptre (talk) 12:55, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I view this entire conversation as prima facie evidence of an RFA system that apparently punishes candidates for getting the right answer.  L ' Aquatique   [  happy fourth   ! ]  04:09, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Kmweber, you're choosing the wrong forum to make your point about cool-down blocks. One of the basic principles that has prevented the implosion of the Wikipedia community is the following: if you don't like the policy, change the policy. If you're too lazy to find support for the change, then shut up and follow its basic intent. No, not blindly like a drone would. Responsibly, like a decent individual respectful of its community's decisions. Pascal.Tesson (talk) 04:22, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
 * As I noted above under Q 6, there is an active discussion of this issue on Wikipedia talk:Blocking policy. — Athaenara  ✉  08:58, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Actually, you're the one who has it wrong. I don't need to try to "change the policy" because that so-called "policy" is totally non-binding and non-prescriptive in the first place!  We're not rule-bound here; we use our best judgment in any situation, so-called "rules" (which are in fact anything but anyway) be damned.  One does not try to "change policy", or to make his actions "accord with policy", because these so-called "policies" are in fact merely descriptions of what has often happened in the past and do not in any way bind our present actions.  Kurt Weber ( Go Colts! ) 16:41, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Neutral

 * Want to see more questions and answers - but Q4 is not one of them! I might need to add some myself. Ncmvocalist (talk) 07:50, 30 June 2008 (UTC)Neutral - confirmed. Ncmvocalist (talk) 12:16, 3 July 2008 (UTC) Moved to support. Ncmvocalist (talk) 20:16, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
 * People may want to know the answer to question 4. America69 (talk) 14:42, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Neutral, for now. While I love the work you do for the Lost project I just believe you should also have experience with other types of articles.  tabor -drop me a line 03:48, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Does this count? – thedemonhog   talk  •  edits  03:55, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I apologize, what I ment was an article unrelated to television. tabor -drop me a line 03:59, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
 * What difference does it make what topics/subjects the candidate has worked on in the mainspace?  Wisdom89  ( T |undefined /  C ) 05:09, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Concur with Wisdom&mdash;it realy shouldn't matter, thedemonhog has more than adequate experience with article-writing (just look at all the FAs and GAs), is very active in the project space, and would make an excellent administrator. It is not as if she only contributes to one article; she has written or otherwise significantly edited many different Lost articles. It is an immaterial fact that they are all within the scope of WP:TELEVISION, IMHO. -- Mizu onna sango15 / Discuss 14:01, 30 June 2008 (UTC)


 * 1) Neutral pending answers to questions. Stifle (talk) 14:12, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I am going to stick with neutral having seen the answers. Stifle (talk) 09:33, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
 * The above adminship discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the talk page of either this nomination or the nominated user). No further edits should be made to this page.